Against my better judgment, Bowler, I yield to your prevarications and start another thread on the subject.

I submit that,

1. You despise the Church and Her Popes in trying to re-open a question that is clearly settled. After the Popes have spoken in this way, (see Tuas Libenter, MCC etc below) you are obliged to hear them just as you would hear Christ.

2. After the Church settled the question, all Doctors and other authorities are totally against you, and you have at best two condemned heretics (Abelard and Baius) on your side, one of whom did not recant.

The Popes confirm by their Magisterial authority the correct teaching among the Fathers, so it is irrelevant if St. Augustine for example at a later time held a mistaken opinion (the great St. Augustine also held a mistaken opinion on infants suffering the fires of hell, which likewise went through scrutiny, correction by St. Thomas and the other medieval Doctors, was finally unanimously accepted and proclaimed by the Church, that infants do not suffer pains of fire, but only the privation of the divine vision).

The correct position is that which the Church made Her own, and it also indirectly confirms that of St. Cyprian, who had said that if by innocent mistake or human error, someone did not receive the sacrament, God would provide what was necessary for salvation.

Quote from: Denzinger

Baptism of Desire (an unbaptized priest) *

388    [From the letter "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona, of uncertain time]

To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine's "City of God" * where among other things it is written, "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian * where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers' and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned.

Quote

The Minister of Baptism and the Baptism of Spirit*

[From the letter "Debitum pastoralis officii" to Berthold,

the Bishop of Metz, August 28, 1206]

413  You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jєω, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jєωs, immersed himself in water while saying: "I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen."

 We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when he says to the Apostles: "Go baptize all nations in the name etc." [cf. Matt. 28:19], the Jєω mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another. . . . If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.

This proposition condemned the impious idea that charity in catechumens was not intrinsically linked with the remission of sins. It shows that catechumens are inside the Church and their charity can avail them the remission of sins just as it does for penitents.

Quote from: Errors of Michael Baius, Condemned by St. Pius V

1031 Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a "pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned" [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.

The Catholic Rule of Faith and the obedience and assent owed to the Magisterium as explained by the Popes and the Church Herself:

Quote from: Syllabus of Errors, Condemned by Pius IX

"The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church"

Quote from: Tuas Libenter

1683  ... For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act o f divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.

1684 But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.

Quote from: Mystici Corporis Christi

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not in itself demand consent, since in writing such letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their teaching authority (assensum per se non postulare, cuм in iis Pontifices supremam sui Magisterii potestatem non exerceant). For these things are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is also true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents (in actis suis) purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

Baptism of Blood and of Desire

From the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Roman Martyrology, the Fathers, Doctors and Theologians of the Church

1. COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1563)
Canons on the Sacraments in General (Canon 4):

“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justiflcation; let him be anathema.” ( this canon is not talking about baptism alone, it is about the Sacraments in general. Can I desire to be marry or to be a priests? Of course not, but why? Because if you go to the section on baptism is says you must be sacramentally baptized to be saved, and nowhere mentions desire as a substitute. Almost as important, this quote from Trent has been cropped to exclude the part that specifically rejects BOD. This shows clearly that subterfuge is at work here)

Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4):

“In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the layer of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto[/i]) as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5).” (this translation is purposely changed to give the impression of BOD. This translation was made by Karl Rahner. Trent does not say "except through", again another subterfuge. That is why it makes no sense with the ending quote from John 3:15)

2. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI (1691-1787)
Moral Theology (Bk. 6):

“But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind␅ [flaminis] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind [flamen]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam De ####o Non Baptizato and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.” (I made a whole thread about this canard of defide, see "Justification by BOD and Being Born Again". Everyone has shown Ambro innumerable times that this quote contains many errors, yet he continues to use it . Moreover, he cuts out the ending in which St AL teaches the heresy that unbaptized children can be saved by baptism of blood. Again I made a thread explaining this, see "St. Alphonsus BOD Defide Canard" , yet Amdro continues his tactic of cutting out that part, as well as other parts too!)

3. 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW On Ecclesiastical Burial (Canon 1239. 2)

“Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.” — The Sacred Canons
by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
“The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of desire.” (this canon dies not mean anything. It is  fallible. If anyone thinks that it means anything, then I ask them to consider what the opposite side that the Church for 1917 years forbid Christian burial for catechumens! So for 1917 years not even the catechumen was thought to "have met death united to Christ through Baptism of desire". Again, this has been shown to Ambro innumerable times, yet he continues to parrot it)

4. POPE INNOCENT III
Apostolicam:

To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where among other things it is written, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Denzinger 388).
(it has been shown to Ambro that this lketter is a forgery
Debitum pastoralis officii, August 28, 1206:

You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jєω, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jєωs, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” (cf. Matt. 28:19), the Jєω mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed off to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Denzinger 413). (First of all, there is no such thing as a priest who has not been baptized. This problem alone demonstrates that the above statement is ludicrous. Secondly, the date of this docuмent is unknown, the author is unknown, it is by no means clear that it was Innocent II,  and the person to whom it is addressed is unknown! Could such a docuмent ever prove anything? No. It remains a mystery why a docuмent of such doubtful authenticity found its way into Denzinger, a handbook of dogmatic statements. This is probably because Denzinger was edited by Karl Rahner, a notorious heretic, whose heretical bias caused him to present this clearly
non-magisterial statement as Magisterial, for he is a believer in baptism of desire. Now Ambros has been told this innumerable times, yet he continues to post this lie)


5. POPE ST. PIUS V (1566-1572) (this quote has been shown elsewhere to be irrelevant)
Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, 1567

Condemned the following erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:

Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a “pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned” (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.

That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.

A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.

6. ST. AMBROSE

“I hear you express grief because he [Valentinian] did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is there in us except the will and petition? But he had long desired to be initiated... and expressed his intention to be baptized... Surely, he received [it] because he asked [for it].”( It has been shown innumerable times to Ambro that this eulogy is not clear. Here he cuts out all the parts that prove my point. It has been shown innumerable times to him where St.Ambrose clearly teaches that even a catechumen can't be saved by desire, with direct clear quotes from St. Ambrose. In other words, it has been shown to Amdro that St. Ambrose is actually a foundational source that agrees 100% with the so-called "Feeneyites." Yet he continues to butcher the Valentinian oration to that one line, in his desperate search for "teachers according to his own desires")



7. ST. AUGUSTINE, City of God (Again, It has been shown innumerable times to him where St.Ambrose Augustine clearly teaches that even a catechumen can't be saved by desire, with direct clear quotes from St. AmbroseAugustine. In other words, it has been shown to Amdro that St. Ambrose Augustine is actually a foundational source that agrees 100% with the so-called "Feeneyites." Yet he continues to post these quotes from St. Augustine, in his desperate search for "teachers according to his own desires")

Quote from: Bowler

That is the reason the Karl Rahner had to insert those two letters into Denzinger:

Be specific. Which "two letters"?

First of all, there is no such thing as a priest who has not been baptized. This problem alone demonstrates that the above statement is ludicrous. Secondly, the date of this docuмent is unknown, the author is unknown, it is by no means clear that it was Innocent II,  and the person to whom it is addressed is unknown! Could such a docuмent ever prove anything? No. It remains a mystery why a docuмent of such doubtful authenticity found its way into Denzinger, a handbook of dogmatic statements. This is probably because Denzinger was edited by Karl Rahner, a notorious heretic, whose heretical bias caused him to present this clearly non-magisterial statement as Magisterial, for he is a believer in baptism of desire.

Quote from: Sunbeam

Quote from: Bowler

That is the reason the Karl Rahner had to insert those two letters into Denzinger:

Be specific. Which "two letters"?

I asked the foregoing question because, in his post above, Nishant had quoted from four different papal letters, viz: "Apostolicam Sedem" (uncertain date), "Debitum pastoralis officii" (28 Aug 1206), “Tuas Libenter” (21 Dec 1863) and “Mystici Corporis Christi” (29 June 1943).

Bowler has not graced us with a reply, but it seems likely from his other remarks that "Apostolicam Sedem" is one of the letters that he claims was inserted into Denzinger by Karl Rahner. If so, then the joke is on Bowler.

Why? Because the letter "Apostolicam Sedem" can be found (under reference 388) in the 1911 edition of Denzinger. That edition was formally approved on 11 December 1910 and received its Imprimatur two months later. In December 1910, Karl Rahner was not yet seven years old!

A six-year old editing Denzinger?

With regard to the content of the letter "Apostolicam Sedem",

Quote from: Bowler

First of all, there is no such thing as a priest who has not been baptized. This problem alone demonstrates that the above statement is ludicrous. Secondly, the date of this docuмent is unknown, the author is unknown, it is by no means clear that it was Innocent II,  and the person to whom it is addressed is unknown! Could such a docuмent ever prove anything? No. It remains a mystery why a docuмent of such doubtful authenticity found its way into Denzinger, a handbook of dogmatic statements. This is probably because Denzinger was edited by Karl Rahner, a notorious heretic, whose heretical bias caused him to present this clearly non-magisterial statement as Magisterial, for he is a believer in baptism of desire.

Firstly: Whether, for want of water baptism, the deceased had truly been a priest, was and remains, entirely beside the point. The question raised by the Bishop of Cremona was evidently about whether, in view of this want, prayers and sacrifices should be offered for the repose of the man’s soul. The decision was in the affirmative.

Secondly: The docuмentary doubt as to whether it was Pope Innocent II or Pope Innocent III who settled the question, is also beside the point. The decision has long been accepted by the Church as having papal authority, and, centuries ago, the underlying principle was incorporated into Canon Law by specific reference to the case. Ref: Gregorius IX, Decretalium compilatio, Liber Tertius, Titulus XLIII, Cap. II. See here.

Bowler, I have to agree with Nisant: Your contempt for the Church's magisterium, and for your betters within the Church, is astonishing, and, if left unrepented, it must put your eternal salvation into jeopardy, notwithstanding baptism in water!